Artist>Discography: Would it be better to sort alphabetically than by year?


#1

As it is now an artist’s discography lists out release-groups, but since release-date is not a property of release-group (spoiler: I think it should be!), the sort order is calculated from the earliest dates on the mediums (releases).
We often only have re-releases that came out months, years or even decades after the original vinyl (or shellac) and it completely messes up the chronology and it looks bad.

Thoughts?

An example:

  • The first album listed is really the third chronologically
  • The debut album was released in 1969 but only a CD re-release from 1998 is entered so it ends up as number 14 on the list.

I realize this is a complex issue but in light of a UI/UX redesign being in the works I think it should at least be discussed.

EDIT: As I posted this I realized that the “cheapest” solution to this problem is of course to just to write out a disclaimer under the Discography header explaining why the list isn’t necessarily chronologically correct.


#2

First release date is always the primary date. Why would you call the 2012 re-release date the date of a 1970 album - it makes no sense.

I’d like a click-able choice. Click here to sort by date, here for alphabetical.
But, until then. by date always makes more sense. Even if it does become sortable, date should always be the default.


#3

Well, there is an “easy” solution for that: add the original release. :grin:


#4

This was my thought also…don’t design around the assumption of incomplete data.


#5

That assumption happens to be pretty much a fact for a project such as this, it will almost by definition never be complete. :wink:


#6

hehe, I guess I deserved that…but how would I even know the original isn’t already in unless I’m a big fan?


#7

If you’re not a big fan you probably don’t care the date is wrong. :slight_smile:

You’re right, of course, that MB will always be incomplete, but to me chronological order is “right” and I wouldn’t want to give that up.


#8

Now, that’s an assumption! :wink: